John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I agree with what has been said by the previous speaker and by most speakers who expressed concerns about this Bill. Senator Leyden, in the midst of other things, said this money belongs to the public, which is crucial and goes to the heart of the matter. The Bill proposes to change radically the original plan to distribute these public funds.

Senator Henry is correct in saying the Government got a lashing in the local and European elections. It was clear when campaigning that was going to happen. I cannot understand why the Government would choose to pull this type of stroke in the immediate aftermath of that drumming. However, I and many other Senators are familiar with what took place in the run up to the last general election when, as Senator O'Meara pointed out, Government candidates went around shouting about the amount of money they had acquired for different local community groups for the development of facilities and services. They were claiming to be using public funds as a type of slush fund in order to promote their election. We are seeing the establishment of a new national slush fund. Senator Ulick Burke was correct to propose a change in the name of the Bill. He quoted a number of people, but I would like to highlight some other quotes. When the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, spoke on a previous Bill in 2002, he said:

With regard to the issues raised by Deputies, to avoid the perception that the Government would use the moneys involved as some kind of slush fund it was always proposed and subsequently effected that an independent board would be established to distribute the surplus moneys from the fund. This board was appointed earlier this year and will distribute the surplus money, subject to guidelines in the 2001 Act.

During a Seanad debate on the Unclaimed Life Assurance Policies Bill 2002 in February 2003, the Minister of State said:

Regarding the point made by Senators John Paul Phelan and McDowell that the money in the dormant account fund could be used as a slush fund, obviously the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has no intention of doing this. The Committee of Public Accounts recommended that the fund be used for charitable and community purposes, which is exactly what is provided for in the Bill. The involvement of the disbursements board is significant in that surplus moneys, subject to the guidelines laid down in the 2001 Act, would be disbursed by the board under the overall policy guidelines given by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

The Bill before the House today proposes to change that completely and absolutely.

The reason the Government is bringing forward this legislation was let slip by the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, during a radio interview some months ago. The Minister admitted, more or less, that the Government changed its mind on this issue because it originally thought the amount of money would be insignificant and the fund would be relatively small. When it became apparent that the fund would come to several hundred million euro, it had to be grabbed and used as a political football in the run-up to the general election. It will be used by Government candidates left, right and centre in the run-up to the next election. They will say that a certain amount of money is available to them to develop facilities in their constituencies. The fund will not be used in the manner that was originally intended.

My late colleague, Mr. Jim Mitchell, expressed his reservations about possible abuses when it was announced in 2001 that a dormant accounts fund was to be established. At that time, he was reassured by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, that the board would be independent and that the disbursement of the funds would be completely independent. We should not be surprised that the Government has reneged on its commitment as it seems to have been good at back-tracking in recent years.

A number of Government Senators mentioned the RAPID programme, which is a particular bone of contention for me. The programme is a complete failure in New Ross in County Wexford, the nearest large town to where I live. It has been launched by different Ministers or Ministers of State on three occasions, most recently in the immediate run-up to the local and European elections. A Minister of State who was a candidate in the European elections launched the RAPID programme in New Ross for the third time. Very little has happened in New Ross to indicate that benefits have accrued from the programme. If the programme is to be held up as a example of what we can expect from the distribution of dormant account funds, the Government should re-examine this measure. Many improvements are needed in that regard.

The Bill is a completely retrograde and cynical political manoeuvre. It is a example of opportunism of the worst form, which we have not seen for a long time. I hope and believe the public will see through it and see the Government's decision for what it is, a grab by the Government for funds which belong to the public, as Senator Leyden correctly pointed out in his contribution. The Government is engaging in a cynical attempt to get its hands on a pot of money it did not think would be so large. It is sending the wrong message to people at a time when serious question marks are being asked about politicians, politics and people in public office. It is a serious mistake for the Government to be seen to be acting in such a manner. I urge the Government to reconsider its decision.